host: what would you change? caller: what would i change? i think somebody, if they successfully sue -- the mandate is unconstitutional. under the other plan, the obama plan, the mandate that everybody carry insurance, it would also stands to reason the mandate under the medicare drug plan also be unconstitutional. host: stephanie, independent line in washington, d.c. caller: people have to stop repeating the drumbeat that

republicans keep going, it will not be there for you. they say the same thing about social security. stop thinking about the drum beat. it is going to be here and the people need to do what ever it takes for it to stay. what they can do -- and i am absolutely against that privatizing -- if they want to privatize, the republicans want to privatize everything and i am not going to be into this privatizing medicare. what i think they need to do is stop the war on drugs, that stupid war on drugs but there are so many things that they could stop. they could stop the regular wars. but you are not going to stop medicare. most of the medicare is used during the last two weeks of life. what we need to do is pull the plug on grandma. and i am a grandma. and the last two weeks of life use than 60 percent as a total

medicare patient. the other thing, these doctors are the biggest thieves, biggest pool of these left in america. host: aside from all of that, but nothing changed today use building medicare is going to survive? caller: of course, medicare is going to survive because we wanted to survive. we got everything else out. we don't have to cut medicare or social security out. people, just stop repeating what the republicans tell you to repeat. host: another input from saved the usa, of twitter -- it is impossible to save medicare. we have $111 trillion in unfunded entitlements and the nation is bankrupt. another viewpoint from oklahoma. on the republican right. henry. go ahead. caller: medicare and social security probably what survive, but if the democrats and republicans and independents would start putting back the

billions of dollars they borrowed from an over the years and quit wasting money, it would survive. host: you think there are changes needed to the program itself? guest: yes. democrats need to start paying back the billions of dollars they borrowed from it. host: let me follow this idea, one of the proposals, this is from "the washington post" story this morning. do you think there should be a rise in age in medicare? caller: no, because over the years it has been paid for by hard-working people like myself. if it is, it should be half of the raise for social security.

like the lady said a while ago -- all the crooks are doctors. she should have said the crooks are politicians and doctors. " wary about god -- yes, i said god even though people don't like the word -- and the dollar bill instead. host: texas is next. democrats line. brenda. caller: good morning, and happy new year. host: thank you. caller: i cannot believe the oklahoma guy believed the the previous democrat. i forget her name but she was on target. it is the republicans would stop the scared -- they get a lie started and it just goes on and on a paired -- on and on. also regarding the oklahoma guy being a republican, i cannot believe he is all that concerned about social security given that they voted those republicans into congress this past fall.

host: is the real problem a perception of people being scared, according to you, about medicare? caller: yes, i agree, people are just scared because the republicans get a live started and it goes on and on. i think it is solvent. also, if we can keep the republicans at bay then we can get our country back. host: why do you think it is solvent and why do you think it is sustainable for the baby boomer generation? caller: because it always has been and we paid our money in. i just think it has always been there for us. we paid in this money, so where is the money? if it is not solvent, where's the money? host: can ask you if you currently receive medicare? caller: i don't. i am too young. host: springlike, florida. barry on the republican line. caller: hello.

honestly, we are coming to a point in this world -- i have two views on the matter. one view is we are, to the point where we are going to have to start basically figuring out in the next 30 years who is going to live and die. we are talking almost 10 billion people over the next hundred years. it is as simple as this right here, though. all the people in power are rich. they live off of basically subjugating the poor. but you can't blame them. survival of the fittest. but you have to look at the prices -- see, the problem is, once we fund the drug companies and give them all this money for research and development, the people giving them all the tax money are getting ripped off again by the drug prices and medicare is getting ripped off because you have $800 going out for something we did not pay for research and development for every single month. some prescription are more at that -- prescriptions are more

than that. host: what would you change? caller: the talk about it once before, but if they need to just sit there -- it blew right past the democrats, they're gonna sit there and at what they are perfect, because they are not. they did not say anything about negotiating drug prices, either. they are just as good as republicans. they are all liars. host: another from the story this morning, who writes about of this morning.

again, we are talking about medicare. stories about its sustainability, especially as the baby boomers start to receive benefits, saturday, january 1. miami, florida. independent line. judy. caller: good morning. i am so shocked i got three to c-span. i have been watching it for some time. i am a nurse for 52 years. i always tried to get out of nursing since medicare came into being. it is socialized medicine. the poor people are funding it. when you work and you only make about $75 a day, you still have to pay that 3% medicare tax. and they put it in several different things.

anyway, it has nothing to do with -- we need to get -- medicare is fraudulent, it is killing people. you don't have a choice to see a doctor. i found myself on medicare. i never had insurance because my grandfather told me years ago, don't buy insurance, don't go to hospitals and don't go to doctors. why should the federal government run a medical system for the whole country when it it should be run by the state because the -- like, in florida, there are so many people on medicare, it is so fraudulent. host: where does the fraud, income of those using medicare or the medical side? caller:, both. i saw "60 minutes, what the drug lords are switching to medicare fraud because it is -- "60

minutes," with the drug lords switching to medicare because it is more profitable. the governor with elected was into medicare fraud 20 years ago. the fraud is so rampant, medical device companies, medicare agencies that provide home care -- i am one and now -- they are all being cut. about the time you start to get better they cut you off for three months. i have not seen a doctor for over a year for what is wrong with me. host: we have to leave it there. fort worth, texas. rebecca, democrats' line. caller: i have a comment and solution. when i became 65 years old,, texas retirement system, i paid into retirement and when i became 65 our trs picked a program with aetna and when i

became 65 a nicely told me i needed to join medicare because they no longer were going to carry me. they were only going to pay 20% that medicare didn't pay, because medicare pays 80% and aetna was only going to pay 80% of the 20% i was a state employee. we did not put into social security, only our teacher retirement. congress let the insurance companies make senior citizens, especially from a wealthy state like texas that prides itself on having a lot of resources, hear the teachers are taking off of the insurance -- state insurance and are told to -- that you have to join medicare. host: all that said. what would you change to make it sustainable?

caller: congress needs to make the insurance continue to pay senior citizens full coverage. a high premium for aetna is higher -- i have to pay for medicare in addition to paying it at now premium on a monthly basis. host: what you pay for medicare? caller: the price -- $100 a month, and you'll have to pay three months in advance. host: what do you get -- what kind of services? caller: when i go to a doctor or my prescription, medicare pays 80%, and if we stop having the insurance take people off when they become 65, i think that would take care of medicare for people who put into social security and are eligible. host: one more call from fort worth, texas. but first i want to show you some other stories.

"the wall street journal." you may remember the dodd-frank legislation and of creating a new agency looking at consumer finance. elizabeth warren picked by the white house to oversee that while a director -- the search for a director takes place. the story in "the wall street journal" says their names being floated. i will's attorney general, but --

kathleen in fort worth, texas, on the republican line. caller: there is no way medicare could be sustained in the current form. it is way too extravagant. host: what do you mean by that? caller: well, what they offer and provide is just ridiculous. it for what the people paid in. there are things that should be paid for personally. a light, it -- like, erectile dysfunction, providing for that is ridiculous. host: staten island, new york. the wayne, independent line. caller: all these people calling in saying we can't fund medicare. we can spend billions and trillions of dollars on wars, we can find a way to pay for medicare. every other advanced industrial country, civilized advanced and- a country pays for complete health care for their citizens. we can raise taxes on the

wealthy. don't believe anybody who tells you social security becomes insolvent. it will be solvent until 2037. after which it will be able to pay out 75 percent of benefits if we do absolutely nothing. what we could do for social security is increase the cap. but there is no problem with social security. you have a bunch of well funded people, pete peterson, all over washington lobbying to privatize it because they can't wait to get their greedy hands -- host: raise their capital what? caller: it is thievery. raise the cap for people with higher incomes so they can pay more into the fund. it should be there for all of us for all of our lifetimes. every other civilized country treats their citizens in a much better way than we do here. here the rich get away with murder and thievery and we just allow it and all they do is

propagandize of and spend the billions they get from the government in tax rebates. if exxonmobil did not pay a dime in taxes last year and had some of the highest profits in the history of corporations in the world. host: fairview heights, illinois. you are next. democrats' line. caller: i am on medicare. i have tricare. i have never had to go to a certain doctor or anything. but, you know, a lot of money has been taken out of medicare bear the why don't all look -- out of medicare. why don't the congressman and senators cut their big fat salaries. they are getting rich off of the poor people. there are people where i live at -- the little less than $600 a month. senators living high on the hog.

everytime you turn around, they're either taking vacations, the president is going overseas -- why not cut some of this out and put money back to the poor people, the ones that can use it. if you want to join us on "washington journal" as we've take a look at new members and what is going on. a story in "the washington post" about new house rules. fort worth, texas. next on the republican line. gerry, on medicare and will survive the baby boomers.

caller: i think it could very well survive, it would just be very difficult. capping one of the things you are really missing -- they are all talking about medicare. but if you look at all of the unfunded liabilities we have for our public employee ease, that make huge amounts of retirements and benefits, i think it well exceeds what social security liability is. that is one of the things that i have not seen addressed here lately, they put the numbers where they say, ok, here is what the unfunded liabilities for the city and federal and please that get enormous benefits, enormous benefits -- you get so little. host: cut those to save medicare? caller: yes, that's right. exactly right. talking about people that retire with such enormous amounts of

money. i have friends that worked all of their lives. their benefits are so great. the salaries are so enormous. it is completely unbelievable that a republican can stand up there and say let's cut medicare when you are paying somebody $900 a month and then you take out 100 and something dollars of required fees. these people can't even live. and they got all of this money. that is where the real problem is. host: some of the house constitution rules you heard about in "the washington post." "the washington times" has a story similar in vain. -- in vein.

georgia. you are next on our independent line. caller: just a couple of points. one, i wanted to review two gentleman ago who called making the argument that social security and medicare are viable until 2037. he left out a key point. of the $14 trillion of debt

that we currently have, $4 trillion of it is basically social security trust fund. all of that extra money that is going in that they have been collecting as part of the unified budget, basically a pile of iou's that have to be funded. so, yes, if we do nothing but continued to borrow money to fund those ious that echoing -- coming due, you don't have the bullet of a 2037, but that means either have to fund them with a new money, new borrowing, or you have to raise taxes. host: would you support raising taxes or raising the age? caller: here is what i would support. i am a libertarian. the baby boomer generation, which paid a lot of money into social security, we are basically it -- the problem. the pig and the python, and we are the pig. all of my libertarian and fellow travelers such as the tea party

folks who believe that government taxation at some point becomes theft should basically look upon social security and medicare as immoral to take. even though that money has been taken from me at the point of a gun, for me to take that money from my fellow citizens in order to support me an old age is basically immoral. host: from "usa today," centre for medicaid and medicare services, calls for each beneficiary at $7,700 and rising.

this goes after an e-mail from steve in kentucky who writes -- cincinnati, ohio. felicia, democrats' line. caller: how are you today? host: well, thank you. caller: i just wanted to make a few comments. i sort of agree with everyone who pretty much call it, but i think the reason why we are having so much trouble with social security is because they keep digging into it and they are taking money from the fund, and the next thing you know, they want to raise the age for people to 69 to get it. but some people who work hard physically -- i mean, really hard work, i do not think it is fair to them because a lot of them are not in good -- i mean,

their health is not very good at all by the time they reach 69. key they just can't do it. it is not like congress, some of them who are 80 years old who should not even be in there -- host: you would not support a hike in age? caller: no, no, no. host: what about increased taxes? caller: i would rather do that than someone having to wait until they are 69. especially i think about the people will have to do hard, physical labor. that is a lot of people in america. host: off of twitter this morning -- freeport, texas, republican line. sally. caller: how are you? host: i am well, thank you.

caller: one thing i wanted to say is i themselves sick and tired of everybody saying social security and medicare is an entitlement program. we have worked for 48 years. yes, i am on medicare and social security. in those years i paid -- my paycheck went to medicare and yet i still have to pay $100 a month out of my social security check to keep my medicare. how is that fair? host: couple of questions -- do you think it is sustainable as far as the folks described as baby boomers joining as of saturday? you think the future is secure? caller: the feature should have been secure for everyone who has been paying into what. the government -- like johnson out of medicare and social security to pay for the vietnam war. they need to put back what they

take out of our accounts and put a backhand. host: as far as changes, raising a age or the taxes or some other proposals, how would you respond? caller: i do not think we should raise va to limit. 65, if you worked as long as i have, you are ready to retire. you cannot physically do it anymore and i am 69 years old. that is all i have to say. thank you very much. host: political action committees, subject of the front page of "usa today close with this one. looking at republicans in advance of 2012.

greenville, ohio. mike on the independent line. caller: your question as far as will medicare be here for baby boomers. seriously -- i'm sure it will be. there is so much money our government has to shuffle around, i am sure it will be there in some way, shape, or form, unless our economy gets any worse than it already is. host: it comes to that would you subscribe to changes to preserve it as far as the program is run? caller: i have thought long and hard about it, and i used to think all of these programs -- they are good, these so-called social programs.

but when you really think about it -- and a lot of people believe this way -- where in our constitution doesn't say that we have a right to all of these things? really, i guess they are entitlements, right? what's wrong with people just knowing for when they start working, when they are 60, 17, 18, and they get a job -- 16, 70, 80 years ago, when they get a job and save their own money in a savings account. our country rely so much of the government for security -- if they get sick and disabled. what about the old fashion way people used to just take care of their family? i know there are situations where you do not have a family and you need provisions for that. like, when you get older, you save all your money and when you retire if you can support itself, you have kids to help support you. host: meridian, mississippi, you are next. it is pale honor democrats line.

caller: i want to say especially to the young john lahood just talk, in the old days families a lot of times that kind of help pick up the tab on of the parents but it put stress on families who nowadays cannot afford to feed their own kids. but in regards to the medicare services -- for me, and my husband, my husband lost his job a year ago, seven weeks after being diagnosed with cancer. he worked on concrete floors for 59 years. at this point we are still paying for the cobra but we are looking at bankrupt here down the road when this cobra runs out due to the medical expenses. now, we paid into social security and medicare our whole lives. we never, ever collected a food stamp, living off of our own savings, which is just about gone. and a lot of this year to may is

just a bunch of bunk. it is almost repulsive. they really need to fix this system to where we have either the public option, i believe aren't counted, california, trying to get that into their own system. and these doctors collect way to much money. more money than any place in the world. double the u.k. system, the canada's system. what makes them entitled? this is ridiculous to put them up on a pedestal where they make the kind of money that they make. host: we should change the way we are paying doctors? caller: we should definitely change the way we pay doctors. when i take my husband to the cancer center in town, the bills are always between $400.700 dollars and they see him for maybe 10 minutes. he gets a little bit of blood work done. it is just absolutely totally ridiculous. as it is, our insurance

coverage, like 70/30 and i have been to hospitals where they say, you know what, you need to apply for better insurance. the fact is that no one will sell you insurance. even the high risk pool has rules that you cannot get insurance until all of your other assets have gone and you are high risk cobra. we saved all of our lives and we are facing medical bankruptcy. my husband could die out on the street. i am fighting every inch of the way. host: our next caller is fayetteville, north carolina. republican line. caller: how are you doing? just a couple of questions. one that irks me, i am a federal employee, disabled vet, as all of my fellow employees. we worked within our ability of our disability.

i know where make what people say they think we do. i make $34,000 a year if it wasn't for the federal employee use employing us -- when i was out of military i tried to get a job in the mainstream and nobody would hire me. it was the federal government that employed in may. i paid my own benefit out of my pocket. and these people are saying, well, we need to cut benefits or we need to cut federal and police, they need to understand that they are talking about -- federal employees, they need to understand their talking about veterans. if it were not for the federal government, we would be out on the street, whole list to -- homeless. one thing they could do, one lady that works for my life, she gets -- they tried to get her more hours, she says i don't

want more hours because i do, they will cut my welfare. that is the place they need to look at. host: we continue on twitter -- tannerville, illinois, joe, democrats' line. caller: know, they shouldn't raise they age. i am just about there and i paid all of my life since i was 15 years old. another comment i would like to make is -- you got all of these shows on conspiracy theory. i want everybody to get on the internet and look up magnetic motors. we are handcuffed to oil, and

magnetic motors are self- sufficient. host: south dakota. , on our independent line. -- tom on our independent line. go ahead. caller: only one way that medicare and social security will become solvent, and that is if they take all of congress off their stupid pensions and fantastic medical plans and make them depend on social security and medicare. then it will be fixed within a week. host: westchester, new york. george on our independent line. hello, you are on. caller: how are you doing? i am a first-time caller. have been trying for many times but could not get through. host: congratulation. go ahead. caller: i would like to talk about the medicaid. the guy who hong of talk about congress and all the money that they make and their benefits -- they have a separate social

security plan. they get it no matter what. they did in to ours to fund whatever their wins. i would like to see that their money gets pooled with our money because when they are spending our money, they are spending their money. number two -- you want to raise taxes. you have to raise them on the rich. it was absurd what the republican congress and senate did it to the tax plan. it was totally absurd. host: "the wall street journal" on its front page.

a couple more calls on medicare and whether it will survive the baby boom. pennsylvania. republican line. arlene. caller: good morning. pedro, my question is, everyone eligible for social security, the matter what their income is, no matter how high it is, do they pay into social security? if they do, do we have a cap on social security saying if you make so much a year, you don't pay into it any more, but then do you still get a check when

you are 65? thank you very much. that is my question. maybe someone can answer it. host: later on we will talk about legislation that deals with food programs at schools. in just a few minutes we will meet two of the founders of the no labels" group. you have -- you may be saw their event on c-span. talking about their efforts in just a few minutes. albany, georgia. wallace on the democrats' line. caller: am i on the air? host: you are, go ahead, sir. caller: i am on social security. 64 years old. i work ever since i was 9 years old. it went through all different kinds of different hard jobs. anyway, i do not feel you should raise the retirement age on social security. i only get $1,100 a month, and

when i go to the doctor i have no insurance -- they claim i get too much money from social security. i can't hardly make it. host: don't raise the age of medicare? caller: they should raise the taxes on the filthy rich because i can look at some laypeople that are getting filthy rich and becoming millionaires and talking about the president. making $40 million down talking on the present. in need to raise taxes on the filthy rich people like ridge limbaugh, doing all the talking, he is a billionaire. orlando, florida. democrats' line. amir, go ahead. caller: thank you for having me

on. host: you are on the air, sir. we will leave it there. coming up, we will talk to two organizers of no labels at talking about efforts to bring republicans and democrats and independents together to meet consensus on a variety of issues -- david frum will join us as well as william galston to talk about that effort. we would take up the conversation after this.

>> c-span's original documentary on the supreme court has been newly updated. sunday, the grand public places and those only available to the justices and their staff. and here about how the court works from all the current supreme court justices, including the newest justice, elena kagan. also learn about some of the court's recent developments. the supreme court, home to america's highest court, for the first time in high definition sunday on c-span. >> activist phyllis bennis, the author of eight books,

including "calling the shots," "before and after," and "ending the u.s. war in afghanistan." your phone calls and e-mail and tweets, sunday at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2. log on to find the entire weekend schedule. >> you are watching c-span, bringing politics and public affairs. every morning it is "washington journal," a live call-in program about the news of the day, connecting you what officials, policy makers, and journalists. next week, the u.s. house and continuing coverage of the transition to the new congress. policy forums. supreme court oral arguments. on the weekends, our signature interview program. on saturday "the communicators," and on sunday, newsmakers, "q&a ," and prime minister's questions from the house of

commons. you can watch on c-span.org and searchable on the video library. washington your way, a public service created by america's cable companies. it's good joining us, two familiar faces -- host: joining us, two familiar faces, david frum, former assistant to president bush, and william galston, former assistant to president client on domestic policy. how would you frame no labels in a sentence of what you're trying to do? guest: an effort to change the tone and content of our nation's politics so that the big problems that we have can be addressed successfully despite division of power between the political parties. host: mr. frum, why this effort as opposed to others that took on this calls over the years? guest: people say it is worse now than the last in

ministration and during the last of ministration people say it's worse than ever -- they are all right. it is worse each time. we are arriving at a point of institutional breakdown, the inability of american government to work. we had this happen before but never at the time economic problems were so serious. the fact we cannot get a governor of the federal reserve board confirmed, 1987 and was an annoyance, but it 2010 or 2011 a critical crisis. i will say one more thing. i worked for the bush administration. the things that were said about president bush were so enraging an outrageous and unfair, and i know a lot of my friends and colleagues of around that time say, we cannot wait to serve as we were served. our reaction was, i just want no part of this ever again. the way politics was done then, that should not be the template for ever. that should be a warning for how it must stop. host: as far as the template is

concerned, mr. galston, what would you advisor that you're dealing with -- trying to get consensus done? guest: number one, as the name of our organization suggests, no labels, we are not asking people to forget about the fact that they are democrats, republicans, or independents, that they have views, commitments, or principles. we are asking them to do two things. number one, stop demonizing one another. understand we are all americans, we are all in this together and we will not get out of it until we all work together. number two, rather than focusing on the differences, which are there, which are important, start with what we have in common and tried to build out. that would really change the tone and conduct of politics. if we ask that question and put that in the forefront.

host: what is the main things all of these groups have in common? of the economy? guest: that is the vote we are all in and it is pretty leakey, right now. not only that, competitors are eating our lunch while we are squabbling over the seats at the table. it used to be time was on america's side and we could afford to waste time. we were preeminent and unchallenged. that is simply not true and most americans understand we are in a tough new competitive world and if we are not moving ahead, we are falling behind. host: as far as getting folks to set aside labels and focus on issues that are more important, how do you work it practical? guest: i run a website a modestly named after myself, frumforum, and we talk about from a republican point of view how we have an effective system of government, how do we make things work, how do we think of the political decisions republicans have to wait with a

view not to cause maximum have it to other side but also making improvements. can republicans think about ways within our political philosophy to strengthen environmental protections, with our philosophy to raise middle- class incomes, deal with inequality and poverty, to enhance and strengthen the power of nation and individual liberty. we have an affirmative agenda that offers more than just anti- liberalism criticism of liberals, which is unfortunately what you get from all of the other so-called conservative sides. host: our guests are with us for an hour. if you want to ask questions about their effort and related issues -- u.n. to reach us by e-mail --

the efforts that were made in the lame-duck, and the accomplishments, is that a good example of what you are ultimately trying to achieve? guest: well, it was certainly a start in the right direction. i think a lot of people were surprised that the administration and congressional republicans were able to come together -- and many democrats, as well, in congress -- on the question of taxes. obviously that is not a permanent solution, the deal that was worked out. but the fact that there could be that kind of agreement at all i think was an encouraging sign. let me give you another encouraging sign. the conventional wisdom about the president's deficit commission was that it would get absolutely nowhere. it did a lot better than that. because you have the very rare washington phenomenon of certified liberals like senator dick durbin of illinois and

certified conservatives like senator tom coburn from oklahoma, who was once known as dr. no, actually saying yes to the same thing. that is what we are looking for. they didn't leave their principals at the door when they sat down at the table to talk about their fiscal future but they found a way forward together. host: but most of the folks, they even rejected the principals -- guest: not true. 18 commissioners and 11 said yes. technically, 14 were required and you did not get 14 out of 18 people in washington setting gas on a joint plan for where to have lunch. the fact that you had the most of the senators from both political parties -- elected officials, not appointees -- signing on the plan was surprising and a career -- and it provides a foundation on which future fiscal discussions can be built. host: the mechanics of the no

labels, where you go from the formal opening? guest: this is what i would like to see happening. this is a very loose group. i don't know if it has a lot of the traditional apparatus of executive control and leadership, so i speak only for myself. one, we need a change in expectations of americans as users and participants in politics. that every institution would build over the past 30 years -- i should not say every, but so many, and powered the angriest minorities. it is not a fact of nature. it did not used to be so. so, you can make institutional changes the way congress works, primaries work, in the culture of what is acceptable. it has always been true, for example, for as long as anyone can remember, by courtesy leaders of the senate would allow an individual senator to block an appointment he or she

would not like. senators would use it occasionally. it is happening more often. a cultural change. the weapon was there but it is being used more than more. you could either -- have a change where people say this is destructive, we will use it less or less or and institutional change where the weapons taken away. it is not in the constitution, not in the law and not even the rules of the senate. host: wonder if i can add to that -- guest: wonder if i can add to that, pedro. no labels is grass roots. at our launch event, 1000 citizens paid their own way. we have a plan. and the plant is to organized citizen groups in all 435 congressional districts. those groups are there to monitor the behavior of elected officials, to hold them to account if they start demonizing each other and appear to be part of the problem and not part of

the solution. we will have town halls in the state to throw the country with the greatest density of independence. that is our plan for 2011. in 2012 we will start flex defense and muscles. host: working with independents? guest: start working with everyone. but focusing initially on stage with greatest density of independents because they are a lot of under estimated voice in american politics. host: how do you ultimately gauge success in this effort? guest: how do you engage success for anything? do things get better? do you see a steady changes in improvement and allows you to look backward and say, things are a little better than before. it is very dangerous to imagine that change happens as a result of dramatic event, or even necessarily by changing the personalities in politics. you could have the same people

behaving in better or worse ways. we have, i think, investment the past few years, a lot of hope to change the culture by changing the personality. but the culture ends up changing the personality to suit itself. guest: i think the american people will be the ultimate judges. right now trust in government is at historically low levels. trust in congress is hardly unmeasurable, it is so low. it is very bad for democracy. if those numbers start to move back up then we will see something positive is happening. host: our guests are here for an hour. michigan republican line. caller: i am kind of curious -- mae off the phone -- how they came up with the name no labels.

it just seems ridiculous to me. i tend to lean more toward the tea party people. i think there are a lot of independent people and they are monitoring and having meetings. i think this isn't like the coffee party which did not work out very well -- is something like a of a party which did not work out very well. there are groups inside the parties that tried to be stealthy, and i think we probably all read david horowitz's book "radical son." we know what these people have done and change their names. glenn beck getting it out to the masses -- we need to identify people and labeled them who they are and not let them be stealthy, and that is my opinion. host: do you want to start? guest: let me start. you know, one of the changes

that has come to the conservative world in my active life -- i have been involved in conservative politics since the election in 1980. when i started, conservatives have a coherent program of reform and change aimed at upgrading living standards, making the economy more competitive, deregulation of industry, reduction in taxes, strengthening of national defense. we implemented a great part of the program and yielded incredible results, and that was the great conservative achievement. i think our inventory is a little thin these days. the result, instead of offering a program, what we too often do -- and in the people the caller admires are examples -- excuses, explanations of the things that of gone wrong, theories about how the assistant secretary of transportation for traffic when he was college studied with this professor, and that tells you everything you need to know about the direction of the obama administration.

that is not the way people want to govern the country. when we look at the middle east and we see conspiracy theories prevalent, we understand that it is a product of the failure of those societies because of they were successful they would have programs offered and competitive elections. that it is a way for me to join with others to change the rules of the game so that we can be more effective in the next 10 years than we were in the last few years. host: wisconsin, you are next. kurt on the line for independents. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. the question i have assembled. -- i have is simple. where were you in 2006 when

nancy pelosi said, "we won. too bad." now all the sudden, these groups come out. i've been to every tea party meeting that is held within 50 miles of my home. i intend to keep going. you will find democrats, republicans, libertarians, independents. everybody comes to them and they are all disgusted with exactly what is behind you in the building. that is what we're going to change. god bless you all. god bless america. have a great day. host: mr. galston? guest: first of all, my hat is off to the tea party movement. it's a genuine grass-roots movement. it has mobilized a lot of energy and a lot of discontent.

americans who want to change the way things are going and to want to make things better have been the lifeblood of our country from the very beginning. no labels is no different. we are republicans and democratics and independents, and trying to find a way forward in very difficult times. i would ask you and the people watching this program to suspend your disbelief. we're in very mistrustful times. david frum just talked about a conspiracy theories. the air is filled with them. let's try to cool the temperature a little bit and focus on the real problems that we confront. the real problems are not our political adversaries. they are tough economic problems, a tough educational problems, a tough foreign-policy problems, and a competitor see

posture in the world that is slipping. the educational system is not performing up to world-class standards. that's the ball to keep our eye on, and not demonizing one another. host: i will let you both respond to this. this is from twitter, from susan. guest: that's something you hear a lot. let me give you a concrete example of how that's not true. we're in the throes of this terrible economic downturn. beginning in the summer of 2009, there were some signs of hope that things were getting better. the economy did strengthen during that time. sometime around 2010, the improvements stopped and the economy slipped backward through the summer. why did that happen? there's a lot of debate. let me point to a powerful indicator. in april 2010, the federal reserve decided the economy had enough liquidity and it stopped

making more. why did the federal reserve stop providing leadership at that time? at that time, the additional governors of the federal reserve could not be appointed. there was a majority in the senate to confirm them. individual senators said -- this person is not going to have a vote. because that governor did not get a vote, the federal reserve stopped providing liquidity to the economy. the economy stopped growing in april. we fell into a summer of wasted time and discontent. the government has to function. the idea that you are better off by paying for this giant entity, which has a series of important functions to do, and then have them not to them, even though you are paying for them, that's a costly and painful thing. i will agree with the implied view of that writer. the government undertakes to much.

host: mr. galston, what would you add? guest: we have unemployment close to 10% still. underemployment is closer to a 20%. we have a federal budget deficit of more than $1 trillion each year. the long-term projections are horrible. gridlock is not going to solve those problems. i'm sorry. obviously, no one is in favor of brash action. our political system was set up , designed by james madison and others, to not rely on brash action. we do need to act. host: springfield, va., thank you for waiting. barbara on the line for republicademocrats. caller: this is james from tennessee.

host: i'm sorry. go ahead. caller: yes, i would like to say that the republican party, the tea party, and fox news networks are all one. their sole purpose is to get barack obama out of office. they will do everything they can to hurt some people in the united states to get him out of office. thank you. hostguest: i will be voting agat barack obama, i assume, in 2010. i would also like to get him out of office. you have to have more than that. you have to have some plan of what you will do once you have the responsibility of governing yourself. in the last spell of republican governance, of which i voted for

and participated in, what happens when you're right to power and you do not have a clear idea of what you want to do. a lot of what went wrong in the obama administration arises from the same problem. they did not adapt their program to the facts. they inherited this terrible recession. clearly, dealing with the recession was a secondary concern to other agenda items that they made more primary. that's another cause of our general problems. we need parties that are more responsive to the general public. we can make changes in the late primaries work, the way campaign financing works, and the way districting works. host: from mississippi, richard on the line for

republicans. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. we know why no labels came up. it came up because people are on to liberals. people are on to progressives. people are onto the terms these career politicians have used. now they're down to no labels because they don't want you to know their true beliefs. i'm just a good old boy. i'm just an american. progressive, liberal, socialist -- i'm just one of these good old boys with no label. most of us know what you are doing. guest: i get called a lot of names. i do not know that people call me a liberal.

i started my political work in 1980 giving out fliers for ronald reagan in a college town that was not very pro republican. we did not win the congressional seat that year. i was in the bush administration. i spend my life and career in conservative politics. if no labels is a stalking horse for some kind of liberal agenda, they've made a big mistake by including me. host: can i throw in the opinions of frank rich? guest: i have written about them. host: he said --

host: what do you make of the intent, or the accusation? guest: well, as i have written, i think it is an unfortunate accusation. it really does not pay attention to what this movement is about and why people are so interested in participating in it. why are people flocking to our facebook page? why did 1000 ordinary americans come to new york city from every state in the country at their own expense? why is spontaneous organizing cropping up in states around the country? this is not being done around some mysterious directive in washington, d.c. we have hardly any money. the people that got interested in this movement early on

consider around this table. we do not have the power to do anything unless the people are interested in what we're trying to do. i agree with mr. rich that people are fed up. i don't think he is entirely wrong to suggest that. a lot of people feel underrepresented or unrepresented in our nation's politics. can mr. rich and i agree on that proposition and move forward together now that we have gotten it out of our system? i certainly hope so. host: house the group wanted -- how is the group funded? guest: i've never seen any money spent in the group. i do not think there any actual funds. people pay their own way. some of the early founders have

generously put money of their own into it. i do not think there are any corporate contributions or business contributions to the group. guest: i'm not really sure, but i can tell you there's not any big contributions to the group. my understanding is that our total spending in the first year of our existence was less than $1 million, which is revealed by the standards of modern organizations. -- which is trivial by the standards of modern organizations. volunteers are not kidding a dime. i have never gotten a penny for the hours i've contributed. i know that others are doing it on a volunteer basis. guest: i spoke at a no labels event in washington and i paid my own pay. host: jack on the line for independents.

good morning. caller: the united states is looked upon as americans. we have an entire, just like the ottoman empire, but the romans, and that british. and buyers are expensive and citizens are taxed heavily. -- empires are expensive and citizens are taxed heavily. it is not just the welfare state. we have an empire. we have to pay for it. guest: well, there's a big debate among scholars as to whether we have an empire or not. there are many who agree with you, sir. for sure, we have global responsibilities. for example, the united states 's navy is the principal force guaranteeing freedom of the seas around the world.

in so doing, we are facili facilitating the global commerce. nations around the world are eager for us to continue to play this role. the alternative is a return to anarchy. yes, it is expensive. there are many americans who wish -- i think, correctly -- that more of the nations that are benefiting from what we're doing around the world would pay something closer to their fair share. this has been a major goal of american farm policy for decades. it's never made very much progress. as americans, i think we need to make a choice. are we willing to continue to pay for the position of coble leadership that we now occupy? would we like other powers, like the chinese, to step up and do it in our place? i know what i think. there's room for legitimate debate. host: rick in fort wayne,

indiana on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. i'm an optimistic person. i believe that a problem, given enough time and solutions, will come into focus. i see a problem and i go into problem solving mode. our political leaders, some of them will look at the same problem and they see blood. they see what kind of harm they can do to the opposing party. they're in conflict mode. i do not think we can get there from here until there is a mind- set shift in our political leaders. i will give you an example. mitch mcconnell is seen as -- as soon as the political race was over, he said his number one

priority was to get rid of barack obama. that was surprising to me. i thought the top priority was jobs. that is the mindset that they are in. i would like to know what the cost of the war is -- the war that is happening on the hill. we've already had collateral damage from that. loss of homes, loss of jobs, the mother and my ear of the financial system -- mug and mire of the financial system. host: senator john mccain talked about the notion of compromise on the floor. having listened to what he had to say, and get your response. >> there's a lot of talk about compromise. do you think this bizarreo world that the majority leader

has been carrying us in on cloture votes on this, both on various issues that are on the political agenda of the other side -- do you somehow think the beginning next january 5 we will all love one another? i do not think so. host: a harbinger of the 112th? guest: here's what i found most encouraging from the lame- duck session. president obama, after this defeat, had a decision to make -- how would you respond to it? one response is to get very tactical and create traps for the opponents. give them things that they say they want, but connect them to other things. you can do a lot of damage to the other side, but you destroy your reputation. that also happen to the clinton administration.

he managed to persuade republicans that he was so untrustworthy that there is no dealing with him. that is not what is happening this time. there is some temptation to do so. on, for example, the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. that was linked early on to the abortion provisions that the democrats knew would be utterly unacceptable to the republicans. they gave a clean vote on don't ask, don't tell. we saw what happened. we will see if the president will continue to negotiate. he is in a more powerful position than bill clinton was in 1995. the country's problems are much more serious than they were in 1995. every day there are moments in washington to prove good faith or bad faith. host: before we go to the calls,

let me play one more clip. this is from president obama. i believe it is from the press conference before he left f or vacation. >> i will be happy to see the republicans test whether or not i'm itching for a fight on a range of issues. i suspect that they will find that i am. i think the american people will be on my side on a bunch of these fronts. host: the larger issue, getting people to work together, especially when you have issues that do come up when you talk about policy. guest: we will see, won't we? we will begin to see in earnest when president obama delivers his 2011 state of the union address. that will lay down the template, the path forward, as he sees it, for the next two years of the country and his administration. my prediction is that after

thinking for a strategy and tactics, he will decide that the path of cooperation is the best, both for the country and for him personally. if he is as smart as i think he is, he will come to the following conclusion. if i get to the high ground and stretch out my hand and invite everyone else to join me here, if they grasp my hand, good for the country and good for me. if they spurn my aunt's ranch hand, then the country can see for itself where the real obstacle is. just to show that no labels is not without internal discord, as a former clintonian, i just have to say that i do not accept that account of what happened during the clinton administration. the record will show that in 1996 and 1997, very important agreements were reached across

party lines on issues ranging from welfare to our fiscal future. apparently, the majority of the republican party during that period reached a very different conclusion. namely, that bill clinton was someone they could do business with, and they did. i think history will record that was not a bad time for our country. just to show you that we are not all on the same page -- [laughter] host: what about the state of the union? guest: i have an article coming up in the next issue of "esquire" magazine. it goes through what should the president do? host: is there a picture of you? guestyou or a famously well dred conservative.

[laughter] guest: he will be fighting an overwhelming temptation to strategy and traps. the president has the inherent advantage. he is a single decision maker at the top. it's easy for him to coordinate than it is for the members of congress. i hope you'll resist that. host: john on the line for republicans. guest: first, the federal reserve is not responsible for growth. they are responsible for debt fueled inflationary baubles that eventually burst. the american public suffers the consequences we have not been telling you that we do not want gridlock. we do not want washington getting bigger and bigger and creeping further and further into our lives and spending more

money. i welcome gridlock. on christmas eve, an omnibus bill was passed that gives the fda to regulate all food growing in the u.s. we do not want you people in our lives anymore. we want gridlock. thank you. guest: one of the real barriers -- conservatives do not understand how much they have won since the middle of the 1970's. if we look back to 1960, the year i was born, it was illegal to own a telephone. the government regulated everything in the country. it regulated telecommunications services. it regulated what was said on the airwaves.

the scope of the government is smaller in every way than it was in 1966. the conservatives could of georgia that, i think they would be less apocalyptic -- if the conservatives could absorb that, i think it would be less apocalyptic. i wish the caller would review the recent history of conservative accomplishments and feel that kind of optimism that makes him think there something better to do as a conservative in washington than simply stopping things from getting done. host: pam on the line for republicademocrats. guestcaller: i think you have tt the money out. given the recent united decision, i do not think that's

happening. i think americans would cheer any political group that got together and started pushing a limit on the times that elections take place. in england, they have six weeks or something like that. we love a shorter campaign season. two, i think you should promote a turntable o cable off day. citizens are being thrown to the lions on a daily basis. as americans, we're sitting around with blood thirsty watching what you people do to each other. i think that promoting a hit to their ratings is one of the only ways to get it to stop. thank you for taking my call. host: mr. galston. guest: let me give you a no

labels perspective. we do not begin in washington with a no labels agenda that we're asking people to sign up to. our hope is that through the citizens' groups that will be organized in all 435 congressional districts -- i can tell you that having attended our launch event in new york', and having listened very carefully to what the citizens who came to the event said, is clear to me that the reform of the political system is high on their list, as it is on yours, and as it should be on the list of americans. there's no question about the fact that our institutional structure, starting as david frum said with the way we organize congressional

districts, to the way that we organize campaigns, is not working correctly. it's certainly not increasing confidence in our government institutions. the confidence is near historical low levels. i share your hope that citizens across the country will develop a robust agenda of political and institutional reform and carry that forward into our nation's politics. host: as far as your organization is concerned, is there a set of principles you're looking for as far as the end results of people coming together? guest: our principles are very simple. one, stop demonizing your opposition, whoever your opposition is. two, search for common ground. 3, be in problem solving mode. four, put the country first. beyond that, it is up to the citizens to come together around solutions. that is why the local organizing

will be the principal focus for 2011. we do not need one more washington center, washington driven agenda. we need a citizen-focused and citizen-generated agenda. that's what we will try to provide the arena for. guest: about what the caller said about cable news, there's obviously a big food fight atmosphere to a lot of people. i worry a lot more, not about the 3 million people or 5 million people who watch a lot of cable tv and get too much slanted political information -- i worry about the 125 million people who get much less political information than their parents and grandparents did. we are moving toward a world in which the best informed americans are so much more informed than they were a generation ago, but many americans are much worse informed. it's that kind of information

oligarchy that is one of the powerful and destructive forces in american politics. if you do not know what is going on, you will be taking advantage of. that's the backdrop to the financial crisis. all kinds of decisions were made that were too technical and too boring for people to follow. trillions of dollars turned. the object should not be to get people to turn off cable tv, but to persuade the 125 million people who do not watch enough political information to watch more. host: how do you factor in political blogs and web sites? guest: i think that is the minority within the minority. there are probably 500,000 people who also read a lot of blogs and are really informed. back to my parents' generation, they were very well-informed people. they're still well-informed. in 1970, you read a couple of daily papers, and consciously

watched the evening news, and special reports on the weekend, not only were you doing your part, but you were getting as much information as it was possible to get. today, that would be baileybaren appetizer portion. it was almost impossible to avoid the 6:30 p.m. news back then, because you had to get off the couch and turn it off, and do something before prime time began. today, it's easy to avoid and a lot of people are. host: richard on the line for independents. thank you for waiting. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm concerned about the labeling stuff. if my memory correct, isn't mr. frum one of the speech writers for the bush administration? didn't you come up with the term, "axis of evil"? are we still live in the consequences of your labeling, essentially, and bankrupting this country? guest: as bill said, we have

some internal disagreement. i'm not quite as peace-loving in temperament as some. i do believe, sometimes, if someone throws a punch at you, you throw a punch back. i would argue more about inaccurate and irrational labeling then i would about labeling altogether. sometimes, yes, a lot of people say to me -- sometimes use a tough things. what are doing in this group? sometimes tough things have to be said. one of the real reasons behind a tendency toward extremism in our politics is that people who have -- too often, people who have moderate views on issues, it is naturaly linked to a moderate personality type. every once in awhile, if you're going to stand up for a broad

points of views, you have to give as good as you get and not say, "gee, i'm too moderate to stand up for myself." guest: let me just add to that. this is a widespread misinterpretation. no labels does not mean that people do not have political identities. no labels is not asking people to shed those political identities, if and when they choose to identify with our movement. it is asking them to think about a larger good that includes but also goes beyond the their individual identities. in a lifelong democrat. i have been in sixth democratic presidential campaigns. i served for two and a half years in bill clinton's white house. i'm proud of every minute of it. having said that, i have never

claimed that my party has a monopoly on either wisdom or virtue. i have never believed that people on the other side of the idaisle were evil. sometimes i have thought they are misguided. i'm sure they've got the same about me. we are not asking people to forget about the fact that they are republicans, democratics, and independents, liberals, moderates, or conservatives, but we're asking them to think harder about what it means to be an american and what it means to practice politics and what it means to be an american citizen. that's all. guest: just before christmas, everyone was talking about the new york jets coach that tripped a player. people thought that was pretty reprehensible. was that man not a good coach?

did that mean he was not committed to the new york jets? there are things we do not do in competition. it does not help the competition. it does not make you stronger. it destroys the possibility of politics altogether. the analogy is, there's a difference between playing as well as you can when you're on the field and tripping the players. host: james on the phone from louisiana. caller: good morning. can we please stop calling mr. frum a conservative? a true conservative would never advise the republicans to support the democratic health care bill. after november 2, it does not look like the american people like it so much. take a look at all the waivers the administration has granted. the pre-existing conditions fiasco where 8000 people when they thought it was going to be

135,000 people signing up -- and now they sneak this end-of-life counseling into the bill in the dark of the night. do you still think republicans should support this? do you really consider yourself a conservative with these types of policy decisions? guest: i'm sorry. i accept you. second, if you read the piece i wrote in spring of 2010, i'm amazed at how accurate it was. what i said then was this. republicans that everything on stopping the health care bill. they refused to try to introduce their ideas because they were so confident they could stop it. i said they would not be able to stop it, so you better try to fix it. republicans did not do that. the result was the health care

bill that passed into law. the idea is that the people rejected my advice were more opposed to the health care bill -- without pat toomy -- republicans rejected it and they did not defeat it. it is here. it is here and all of its awfulness. do not tell me about the intensity of your emotions when your methodology has led to this disaster. yes,ca,re -- it would be a much better bill from my point of view. now, passing a repeal through the house of representatives, passing a filibuster, winning a presidential election, and finding a president who will sign it. it is impossible. it is here. host: bingham, new york.

kelly on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. mr. frum and mr. galston appeared to be the only -- people are attacking the idea. people are attacking mr. frum. when you have countries like china, india, singapore zooming past the united states. i just called american people can educate themselves -- i just hope the american people can educate themselves into the right thing for the country. host: what would you like to see? caller: i would like to see more people pay attention to it and stop cleaning themselves to the media that gives misinformation.

there are millionaires spreading a bunch of misinformation. it is just misinformation. when are they going to pick up a book? when are they going to reach something from a different idea and stop what is going on? host: mr. galston? guest: thank you very much. we have a movement for you movementsir. -- we have a movement for you, sir. i think your last comment was really onto something. for good or ill, the change in the media and information landscape over the past three decades has made it more and more possible for people to live in a world of information and opinion that reinforces and hardens their own prejudices. that is making it harder and harder to have the kind of

conversation that we need to have. david frum, a few minutes ago, referred to the now vanished era where the three networks and the nightly news shows dominated the information flow. that era was not all good, but it did require people to participate in a common pool of information. it did make it possible for the country to have a more robust political the sessiodiscussion s more center seeking then what we have now. the problem with these niche markets is that they are echo chambers reinforcing rather than challenging the opinions that listeners and viewers bring to them. that is not a problem for which i have a solution because the change in the media landscape is a product of decades of technological development, decades of legal development that open up markets.

the media, like the airlines, are much less regulated than they were thre30 years ago. there are many advantages to that. people were avid consumers of information have a lot more available than they did 30 years ago. people who have a narrow view simply have those reinforced. guest: i try to counteract this game by joining it. i run a site. we try to offer something that a little broader. host: nolabels.org. guest: i was actually promoting my own. [laughter] visit no labels, too. host: if they go to this website, what information can they find?

guest: they find out what's no labels -- what no labels is about and how they can get involved. those of the two most critical things. they also have a steady flow of information and commentary from different points of view. we're trying to build that up and make it more robust. we do not have a lot in the way of resources. we do not have all the bells and whistles that people have become accustomed to, but the basics are there. it is like the old folk story with a pot of water bubbling in the middle of town square. the two stew will be as good as the meat and vegetables at the american people bring to it. host: the people identified with your group, is there a breakdown? guest: we do not have the demographics on that yet. obviously, before we get too far into 2011, we will start to have

a better feel. i can tell you this. there's a very healthy mix in new york for our launch event in the seats and on the stage. host: there will not be any larger events? guest: there will be state and local events. frankly, national events are not what we are about. if this is not a grass-roots movement, it is not a movement. if it's not a movement, it's just a few people sitting in washington hoping for something better. host: allen, texas on the line for independents. caller: thank you. pedro, please do not cut me off before i have my points made. right now, the calls are -- well, there's a call for, one twitter for, and mine for

seeing through what these people are all about. i commend my people from michigan, wisconsin, susan on the twitter, mississippi, and the article for mr. rich. i did not count that. that is 11 now. host: your point, please. caller: my point is that these people are social engineering. host: we will leave it there. guest: i do not think i am social engineering. host: mr. galston? guest: i've been called a lot of things. social engineer? i do not think so. it is not social engineering.

it is grass roots american politics. if i'm accused of participating in grass-roots american politics, i have to plead guilty. that's what i'm doing. i have said probably three or four times in this hour, and i will say it again, this movement is what citizens who are not satisfied with the concrete issue of our nation's politics are going to make of thait. i have my own ideas. i do not expect those ideas to be adopted. i hope they will be discussed. i hope a lot of ideas will be discussed, too. that is democracy. host: you had a chance to see the no labels national leadership meeting. that will be aired friday aired8:15 -- friday at 8:15. you can see more about it and what it is about.

we invite you to view that. also, if you want to check out their website, nolables.org. mr. frum and mr. galston, thank you. coming up, we will look s kool health care legislation related to that. we'll come back and a little the phones. first, an update from c-span radio foch's. shh -- radio. >> christine o'donnell denies inappropriate use of campaign funds. she tells "good morning america" that is a political tactic. federal authorities are investigating whether she broke the law by using campaign money to pay personal expenses during her campaign for a senate seat from delaware. meanwhile, republican senator

murkowski is expected to be certified as the winner of the election in alaska. joe miller's legal challenges to her right in both the lady the clearing of a winner. she will be the first candidate since 1984 to win as a bright in canada. the former israeli president was charged with raping an assistant in his cabinet. the 65-year-old faces a minimum of four years and up to 16 years in prison in two accounts of raping an employee in 1998 when he was tourism minister. the tel aviv court also convicted him on indecent acts and sexual harassment involving two other women who work for him when he was president of israel. in this country, the number of people applying for unemployment benefits fell sharply last week.

analysts say this is a positive sign the job market is slowly improving. the labor department says applications dropped by 34,000 to 388,000. that is the lowest number since the week of july 12, 2008. the level of applications has fallen or remained unchanged in five of the last six weeks. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> the one thing that we have absolutely learned over the last 30 years is that economists and other sages of the economy are not very good at predicting what actually happens. >> robert samuelson has written about politics, the economy, and social issues for over three decades. he will join us sunday night on c-span's q&a. >> the c-span networks, we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction

books, and american history. it's all available to you on television, radio come on line, and social media networking sites. find our content anytime in c-span video library. it is washington your way. this c-span networks, now available in more than 100 million homes, created by cable, provided as a public service. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our discussion about school lunch programs later on in this program at 9:15 a.m. for the next half-hour, we are interested in getting your thoughts on the most admired politician. it can be from any era, modern for the past. specifically, tell us why. for the next half hour, your thoughts on the most admired politician. here's how you can do that this

morning. call in on the line. again, if you want to weigh in on the most admired politicians and why. you can also send us in e-mail. you can also send us a tweet. we take this question, in part, from a recent survey done by "usa today" and gallup. it showed the most admired man. you'll notice that several of the top three are our politicians. barack obama had 22%. he is followed by george w. bush, 5%. bill clinton at 4% could you will notice that nelson mandela and bill gates are also on that list. if you want to turn and look of

the women that were admired by "usa today" and gallup, hillary clinton with 17%, followed by sarah palin. oprah has 11%. michelle obama, 5%. condoleezza rice, 2%. it inspired us to ask about your most admired politicians. you can do so by phone, e-mail, or twitter. we will take this discussion to about 9:15 a.m. or so. let's start off in houston, texas. migke on the line for republicans. caller: ronald reagan, hands down. i work for him in 1984. ronald reagan knew who he was. he believed in the individual. he believed in the constitution. because he believed in the

individual, he said in his inaugural speech that the government is the problem, not the solution. he created the reagan democrats. even people who were democrats could see through him and believe him. what he said he believed, and people believed that he believed it. host: tony on the line for democrats. caller: bernie sanders makes me want to live in his state. he makes a lot of sense. he is for the people. he's not for the greedy thieves. host: did you do that before the filibuster? did you hold that feeling towards him before the lame- duck? he has really left us. new jersey, james on the line for independents. james, are you there?

one more chance. let's go to morristown, new jersey. the most admired politician. kevin on the line for republicans. caller: i would like to stay current and i would definitely say ron paul. when i watched the republican debate, he absolutely would meet. -- wooed me. he was in the face of all the republican standing around him. he's the only one that stood up and said what he believed, even to the dismay of the whole crowd and everyone around the was trying to slam him. he stuck to his guns. he made me want to be a libertarian and not a strict democrat. he has gained my respect. i think he is just a qualified man. that's it. host: off of twitter -- ted kennedy.

charleston, south carolina, your next. stanley, go ahead. caller: thank you for everything you do, c-span. my chance would be bill clinton. why? for this period right now, we just need someone a little tougher than barack obama. i believe president clinton would come to that challenge. host: what did you think about seeing president clinton alongside president obama talking to the media? caller: i loved it. i thought it was a great idea. like i said, bill clinton would be the right man for the tough guys -- with the new people we just elected to congress, we need a tougher democrat right now. i think he would be that one. host: wisconsin, most admired politician. linda, go ahead.

caller: president obama. i agree that i hope he gets tougher. i think one of his strong points is the fact that he keeps in mind the middle class america and the people who are struggling. i remember reading in his book where he said -- when you get 40,000 feet above everyone, you can forget how people are struggling in their day-to-day lives. i know he takes time to read letters from people who sent letters to him about the struggles we are going through. i think he makes a strong effort to keep in mind the guy out there who is looking for work and struggling with health care. i really admire him for keeping that perspective. host: a viewer adds that nancy pelosi would be heard choice. we go to long island, new york. republican line.

good morning. caller: good morning. host: most admired politician? caller: george w. bush. he kept us say for eight years. he took a lot of abuse, but he kept on ticking. host: did you read his book? caller: not yet, but i look forward. host: to. a couple stories. this is out of "the philadelphia inquirer this morning. -- "the philadelphia inquirer" this morning. host: mass., you are next. michael on the line for independents. caller: hello?

host: go-ahead. caller: this is not michael. this is glenn from california. host: you made your point. what is your station on -- your statement on the most admired politician. caller: john f. kennedy treaty was a great president -- john f. kennedy. he was a great president. host: good morning. caller: i got through on my birthday. i have to go with president obama. i would also give a shout out to nancy pelosi, who really made women all over this nation proud as our first woman running the house. thank you have a great year. ginger thompson says that lanny davis announced wednesday he

would resign. host: washington, mr. frmost add politician. caller: good morning. i would like to second the opinion of a previous caller about congressman ron paul. he is always been someone who does speaks about the constitution and how we've gone so far from our roots. if you just go back to the constitution, all the problems are solved. i think he stands out above any politician.

he is probably only up 3% or 5% of all of our senators that talk about the constitution constantly. i'm glad to see that he will be head of the subcommittee that will oversee the fed's actions. the fed is the problem. the fed is the problem. they are buying these treasury bonds as they print our money. they are buying the treasury bonds from goldman sachs. if that does not tell americans just how corrupt the system is, -- my hat is in the ring for dr. ron paul. host: atlanta, ga., peter on the line for independents. caller: good morning. i love c-span. i would have to split between bernie sanders and dennis kucinich, both of whom i have been admired for a long time. i would like to see them both on a ticket in 2012.

thank you very much. host: an election gone wrong in kabul. nato and american officials had pushed strongly for parliamentary elections in september, gambling that a successful vote would show progress in the war and new growth in afghanistan's democracy. instead, insecurity, the disaffection, and fraud, particularly in the south, left the country's largest and most important ethnic group, with sharply reduced representation. the president there has tried to stay aloof from the dispute under pressure from the election commission preannounced that the parliament would be seated as planned on january 20. they reduced his support in parliament. columbia, missouri, scott on the

line for democrats. caller: i was going to suggest somebody a little bit off the map, i guess. cicero. the reason would be that he came into power at a very critical time. .

that is how she got good things into her house and she deserved it. i think she was smart and him in a lot of ways and i think she

ran the business. host: banks for the common. next up is tennessee on the democrats line. caller: i think clinton pushed the [unintelligible] and then you have crossed the goal -- bless the lord and then the two bushes. since jimmy carter -- and then you have glass steagul and then the two bushes. since jimmy carter we have not had anyone good. host: most of you know the

rosita reporter picture. here in the bio it says she was never a riveter. commercial artist howard miller created the image as a morale boosting image. only after the decade of world war ii did the image become associated with rosie the riveter. her claim is supported by the historical society of michigan. again, rosie the reporter, geraldine doyle, passed away sunday. she was 86 years old oklahoma, steve. independent line.

caller: my favorite was abraham lincoln the politician. abraham lincoln was the political genius in american history. people thought he was a country bumpkin and throw his career he changed people's minds with his ability and genius. host: something that stands out in your mind that is the epitome of that, an example that you can give our viewing audience? caller: the compromise between the two parties. abraham lincoln put together the best team of the most able men. they were democrats, political but he knew there were the best man to save the union. -- political rivals of his, but they were the best men and to

save the union. hundreds, thousands of books you can read about linking for the rest of your life, but i would encourage every viewer to see how a master politician operated and saved this country. read "a team of rivals" by doris goodman. host: this is in texas at the federal appeals court.

the texas attorney general's office was not available for comment on this "wall street journal" story. vermont, good morning. caller: i like lincoln and john f. kennedy, but someone else in my lifetime would be jeff -- jesse ventura. host: why so? caller: he is a trick for power and i think that is a very needed thing today. host: washington d.c., your next on the independent line. caller: gentleman from oklahoma made a great point about lincoln, but my two would have to be franklin roosevelt who saved this country during dire need, and my favorite would have to be dwight d. eisenhower.

he stood up and spoke the truth in that military-industrial complex speech, in my view, one of the great speeches ever. the release spoke the truth with the military and industrial complex speech. -- he really spoke the truth with the military industrial complex speech. host: this story? about five men arrested, as far as a danish terrorism attempt is concerned. a group of men arrested wednesday in denmark was about to mount a "mumbai style" attack on the danishes paper that ignited muslim. by publishing satirical cartoons of the prophet mohammad in 2005.

in michigan, bill, republican line, good morning. caller: my favorite, joe wilson. he speaks truth to the power, doesn't he? and i would like to say to america, and all of the women that think bill clinton, we know that -- we know what bill clinton did to young women. host: most admired female, according to offer of twitter this morning, senator debbie stabenow, who stood up to senator kyl. rio, brazil, tony, good morning. caller: i would say the u.s. envoy abroad, that is, senator

george mitchell. he is doing a wonderful job. i also want to thank you about [unintelligible] host: before you go, why george mitchell? caller: he is actually doing an extremely tough task at hand, dealing with the issues of the u.s. envoy. i believe he will get some results in the end. host: are you watching us, or listening in to us in rio? caller: online. host: you do so -- how do you do so? is it off the internet, or we also have applications for the iphone and things like that. caller: i am listening through c-span.org. host: thanks for the plug.

you can also listen to our video library as well. virginia, democrats line, sandra. caller: i am going to plug two men, both of them my senators from virginia. first, mark warner who is working with bob corker, a republican from tennessee, and the two are working to get legislation through. that is what we need, people putting their minds together and coming up with they way to get things done. and the other one i admire is the other senator, jim webb, who is a man who has served in the military. my whole family was military and i am definitely pro-taking care of the troops. i asked him once if his son's where combat boots, and he said

to mind your on business, letting people know it was not their business. mr. webb made it very plain that he was still his own man. i think more of us need to stay up -- stand up and say who we are. of my two men are warner and webb, and i'm very proud to have them as my senators from the state of virginia. host: from the financial times today, south korea, the country is about to take part in the sixth-country talks.

denver, colorado, republican line, dave, go ahead. caller: a, i would have to say admired politicians is john hagan looper from colorado. he used to be our mayor. this guy came 20 years ago from nowhere. he grew up in pennsylvania, moved to colorado. he is a real person. he led his campaign on know deserve -- no dirty politics. he always said what he was going to do. and people believe him. he is an entrepreneur. he built several restaurants before. and this guy, i was doing a remodel on his house, last job

as a geologist and he was down of a way to the ground. and now he is the governor of colorado. and i am so glad because now we will be led by a real person. host: this story in the note "new york times" on wednesday -- one more call, new jersey on the independent line. caller: i would say that joe biden is my most admired politician because the despite the ridicule he has received in the press, he has been right on foreign policy and he continues to have the courage of his conviction. i want to say about and heard their discussion of gridlock and the importance of the electoral reform, because it was not

touched upon. there is no prospect for any kind of electoral eliminating or reforming the electoral college, or a least a split on congressional districts by states and i think this is a real problem. host: that is the last call we will take. if you have been watching, you know that this week we have been talking about food legislation in america. coming up we will talk about nutrition impact in schools. our guest is tracy fox. >> it is 9:15 a.m. here in washington d.c. the 2012 senate campaign in virginia has its first tea party candidate. jamie radtke, head of the virginia tea party patriots, has filed papers to run for the

republican nomination for the virginia senate seat currently held by democrat germ -- jim weltoweb. former senator george allen, who was jim webb's opponent in 2006, is also considering a run. meanwhile, danny davis, a democrat from illinois and in a world candidate in chicago is very upset with former president bill clinton. congressman davis, a onetime ally of mr. clinton, issued a strongly worded statement this week saying he is "seriously concerned and disturbed" by the news that mr. clinton plans to throw his weight behind rahm emanuel. bill clinton will make a stop in chicago next month. mr. clinton has no comment about davis's remarks. there are new laws issued to

comply with international rules to fight money laundering and terrorist financing. the move comes as the vatican dozy own bank is implicated in a money-laundering investigation. and finally, the media advocacy , reporters without borders says 57 journalists were killed worldwide this year. the most dangerous was in pakistan, where 11 were killed in connection with their jobs. overall, the death toll was down 25% from 2009. but the group says in its annual year-end report that kidnappings increased dramatically in 2010 to 51 cases of from 33 in the year before. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. > this weekend on c-span3's

"american history tv" the recent discovery and exploration of 200-year-old slave quarters. and a never before televised oral history of the black congressional caucus on its work and -- on its work. see the complete weekend schedules online at c- span.org/history where you can also press the c-span of urban and half are scheduled to be mailed to you. >> "book tv" in prime time tonight. david kirkpatrick on the open court the facebook effect." and look for three days of "book

tv" of the new year's weekend, starting friday morning at 8:00 a.m. on c-span2. host: all week we have been looking at issues and policy -- food policy. on monday with of the food safety legislation. on tuesday with a debt issues facing small farmers. yesterday we looked at the sustainable food movement. today is the job attrition legislation. our guest is tracy fox, the president of food policy consultants. as far as school lunches concerned, what happened recently? guest: this is a huge move in terms of the quality of school meals in many decades. basically, the hunger free at that was passed by congress makes a significant investment for the first time in 30 years in our school meal programs.

it improves the quality of nutrition by providing food service operators with more resources to improve the quality of school meals. right now, the department of our culture provides reimbursements to schools and -- who are providing meals let me certain standards. this is the first year there is a significant of of in that great. and it provides the usda the authority to regulate competitive foods, all of those other foods and beverages that you find in the cafeteria, vending machines, school stores. that is pretty significant. the other main area it addresses is access. we want to make sure that more children are eligible to receive the meals that they need. we are trying to improve access and try to get more kids who are eligible into the program so they can get the healthy meals,

either sex or also the after- school program -- either healthy snacks or the also the after- school program. and third, accountability and structural issues. in other words, schools will be monitored more closely to be assured that they are adhering to nutrition standards. host: is it too simple to say that the usda now has more control over a menu at a local school, wherever it is in the u.s.? guest: they have always had control over the menus in terms of school meals. if you decide you're going to produce a paid in the school milk program and your a food service operator, you have already been purchased dating someone. this much me, this many servings of fruits and vegetables, but you have had a lot of liberty what you wanted to do without. this provides you with a few more resources and technical

assistance to urge you to improve the quality of the meal you are serving. not only that, but the tape -- same time this bill was moving through congress, the usda has been hard at work at of getting these standards, so there will be more updated guidance to a serving. this bill complement's what usda wants you to do and providing you as the school food service operator with the resources to do just that. host: this will vote next year and beyond. guest: the regulatory process is moving a little more slowly than this legislation moved. we will see schools makings of a contagious now knowing this is coming down the pipe, but we will seek changes. instead of regular pizza and sweep peaches, you might see a whole wheat pita with mozzarella

cheese on it and low-fat milk and unsweetened apple sauce. there will be some changes. some of them will be subtle and moving along the way. when all is said and done, by 2013, 2014, some significant changes. host: our guest is with us until 10:00. if you want to ask the question, the numbers are on the screen. you said something called competitive foods. can you expand on that? guest: competitive foods are -- if you think of a school meal program when a child walks into a cafeteria, they get the doctor. there are a lot of other things they can choose as well. the doughnut, the chips, the sports drink.

those are the things that compete with the school meal program. those who are not just in the cafeteria. you have them in vending machines, school stores that are open throughout various times of the day. there are many opportunities for kids to eat at school, not just during the school meal program. up until now, before this law was signed, the usda had very limited authority. they have a lot of authority with the school meal, like i said. if you're going to participate, you have to serve this, this, and this. this law -- you will not find in the law that you can only serve this. it gives the usda authority to regulate just like they do the school meals. there have been a number of reports that have come out that if you are going to have competitive foods, these are the standards that you should me. the usda has a lot of guidance as they prepare those regulations and there will be

consumer advocates watching over them to be sure that the standards that they do come up with our strong. host: if they have a certain calorie or fat content, they get pulled? guest: they will not be able to provide them, basically. and there will be some oversight to provide training and technical assistance and to be sure there are checks and balances and accountability. i worked at the county level for years and worked very hard when my kids were in school system to work on improving the quality of competitive school -- competitive foods. and we were successful at getting a number of the items out of there. we have a long way to go, which is why we are excited about this provision in the bill. there are some good benchmarks' out there. there are some good standards. we think this is in a lamentable -- this is

implementable. host: do schools used competitive food to make money? guest: there is research that shows some times in the reimbursable meal is helping the price of the competitive foods. we do not like to see this at all. as the quality of the competitive foods increases, we see more kids participating in the school meal program, which is what we want to see. the quality of the food, no matter how good the competitive food is, it is going to be better. host: in this legislation, and the details, schools have to be audited every three years. what does that mean for people

on the ground? guest: right now, they are used to being monitored and evaluated. this is just going to ramp up what was once every five years. it is not that much when you think about how much money the federal government bonds into the school meal program, about $23 billion per year. that includes breakfast and lunch. there will be technical assistance, as you mentioned. we hope that this is going to be, perhaps, a smoother transition than one might expect. they are used to being audited. it is just wrapping it up a little bit and they are providing technical assistance -- ramping it up a little bit and they're providing technical assistance. host: is the usda ready to handle these improvements? it's guest: it is going to take time, but they are -- guest: it is going to take time but they are moving to handle these

involvements. congress is going to be working on legislation and they are very much in contact with the alleged -- with this administration. the food and nutrition service, which is the agency that really runs this program, has a very integral role. it is going to take time, many years before all of these provisions are implemented. host: we are looking at childhood nutrition legislation. our first call is from john in baltimore, md., on the independent line. caller: a couple of questions for ms. fox. that is, since we believe big brother knows more about our children's nutrition, the questions i have are several. one is, where was ms. fox during the years that our local and state government allowed all of these snack machines to be put in schools, which was insane?

i can recall in the 1960's going to school we could not even have come in our classrooms, let alone candy bars and soda -- we could not even have gum in our classrooms, let alone can bars and soda. as far as the children that are going to school hungry, take a look at the federal food stamp program and what that is allowing parents to buy. they wonder where children go to school hungry. -- and then we wonder why it children go to school hungry. guest: thank you for your comments. i agree, when we were going to school bending machines were a rarity. and it would be a relief fund yields -- fun deal for me to get a soda. and we have talked about the proliferation of these types of foods in the cafeteria. because we are in an environment

where food is everywhere, we expect it, even in our school system. i think that is why it has gone out of control. that is why one of the provisions of the bill gives the government a little more authority over all of the food offered in the school is really important basically, in the 1970's, that authority was taken away from the usda. if we are glad that the usda is in a better position -- we are glad that the usda is in a better position. host: atlanta, georgia, carol, republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i like the last comment. i know a joke on the lunch programs that come to school and buy sodas -- i know children on the lunch programs that come to sodas.and by so doebuy

it is just a waste. but i'm really concerned with the food stamp program and what people buy with the food stamps. i have been behind people in line and have seen the jump in the card. i have talked to people in the potucek airline -- and have seen .he jumjunk in the cart a bag of data chips is $4. you can get all the vegetables for less than that. -- a bag of potato chips is $4. you can get vegetables for less than that. i think people ought to be limited with what they can buy with food stamps. and i agree, get those machines out of the schools. it is hurting our children. guest: thank you. i appreciate the comments and i agree with you. we are hoping that this legislation will make it easier for kids to have access to only healthy foods.

there is no reason then -- that they should be walking down the school halls and have access to this type of food. the supplemental nutrition assistance program, snap, they changed a few years ago, but basically, what is interesting about this legislation is that there is a provision in there that restructure's the nutrition education component for the snap program. it provides not only for the families in need, but it also provides nutrition education funding. we are hoping to bring those initiatives of to the 21st century to do multilevel purchase, community-based approaches, that really held snap. -- help snap.

there is a lot of education that needs to go hand in hand with the benefit itself. we hope that some of the provisions in this bill will get to that as well. host: on twitter -- there is a provision in this bill that encourages community and school-based gardens. i would be the first to say that is not the solution, but it is going in the right direction. we do not expect that all of a sudden all of the kids will want a set -- a salad bar. but there is an initiative to get a salad bar in every elementary across the country. and in the instances that the cell of our is introduced, the kids really do go crazy. -- that a salad bar is introduced, the kids really do go crazy. it is not going to be the solution, but it is a very

important component. and it is also interesting, i think, from the education side, because we are hearing from the callers about people needing to be educated about what they purchase. there is some benefit about the farm-batu-school as well as the school-based gardens -- farm-to- school as well as the school- based gardens. there will be some resources to kabul but a lot of what is going on in the cafeteria. -- there will be some resources to complement a lot of what is going on in the cafeteria. host: there will be an updating of the food pyramid? guest: that is a graphic on the dietary guidelines for many americans. it is going to be revised and we

hope it'll be any day now. and what is going on in schools will be caught -- tied closely to the guidelines. host: food that is low-income and those kids that fall under their, what reimbursement are you looking and providing? guest: to back up a little bit, right now, about 30 million kids participate in the school lunch program. they are not all children that are economically poor. we have about 30 million kids per dissipating and about 18 million of them fall into the reduced price range. the other 12 million, their income does not qualify them for those categories. the majority of them do happen to be in an economic category that they are read -- they are

eligible for reduced price. school get about $2.70. for the reduced price is about $2.30. before the free trial, the school reimbursement is about 25 cents. -- and for the free child, the school reimbursement is about 25 cents. it will basically bump that up 6 cents in each category. host: do many school board as a paid? guest: many states do. it is very difficult to make the. cents ist like the six sense the be all to end all, but many

states will kick in as well. host: next call from georgia. caller: this bill was needed to, being someone who have free lunch themselves. it was often the old way you could get something to eat. -- often the only way you could get something to read. of course, that was a little less than 20 years ago. as far as what other callers were saying about vending machines, they do contribute to the dietary -- to changes in the dietary needs of the kids. they will rush to the vending machines. i hope that the schools are able to have -- to meet the needs of their students with good meals if the parents are going to pay good money. i would like to put in there

also that i keep hearing about the usda. it is my opinion that they are failing us because they keep a publishing information that has been greens as the primary source of -- that has greens as the primary source of fuels for the body. let's remember that 10,000 years ago, people were meant to be meat and vegetables. parents need to start incorporating more of those items into debt lunches. -- into bd lunches if they're not going to pay for their students to read. guest: i think you raise a couple of good points. on the parent's side, i agree that parents need to understand the benefit of the school meal, but also often times, i think parents tried to do a good job at home. sometimes when they send their kid to school, the last thing they think is that their child is going to have access to

vending machines with high-fat and high sugar. we do not want to undermine parents' effort and at home. that is where we want to make the school environment as healthy as possible to complement what the parents are doing at home, not undermine their efforts. and there are programs that give parents -- and there are provisions that give parents better access to what is going on. one was started in 2004 and includes nutrition education, as a collectivity and those kinds of things. but it was not very transparent and parents did not get an opportunity to see what was in the policy. there is an effort to engage parents a little bit more, provide them information about what is in the school meals. we do hope that parents become better informed and can't understand what is going on and two, -- and can understand what

is going on and two, become advocates. host: what impact has the effort of michelle obama had on this program? guest: when you have the first lady from the bully pulpit talking about the importance of healthy eating and does what to become a hugely important. i think we owe a huge amount of -- a huge amount to her effort. host: michigan, thanks for waiting. lawrence on the republican line. lawrence, are you there? we will move on to cedar springs, mich., joe, democrats line. caller: this bill was a lot further than what you are stating. how far will this go into are concession stand, fund-

raising activity -- go into our concession stands, fund raising activities? and this is one more unfunded mandate from the federal government. you just said we will only get 6 cents on top of what it costs to make a meal to implement this. the cost of training and implementation. how does the federal government plan for us to meet the additional cost for this program? guest: you raise a really good point on the fund raising and after school. there is still a good deal of authority that will continue for local entities to do the fundraising and those kinds of things. there are a few provisions in there that called on local districts to take in consideration the nutritional health and well-being, but there is still a fair amount of control when it comes to, fund- raising and after-school

concessions. in terms of the unfunded mandates, it is important to note that there was a $4.5 billion investment in this legislation. that is over and above what already is committed to basically, run the program. there is a $4.5 billion increase in investment. the 6 cents per meal, i agree with you, and many would say, that is not going to be the be all to end all. schools will have more resources and tools at their disposal. there is $50 million alone that will be provided for training and technical assistance for the school providers to be sure they can handle the increased quality of the school meals. and there is funding for the equipment. there is training and technical assistance. and we do hope that with those, and the other complementary

provisions of the bill that will not be a huge burden on the school districts. right now we are providing $22 billion for school districts. host: what about drinking water? guest: oftentimes you will find that it is hard to find a functioning water fountain. this bill requires that there at least be free water in the cafeteria during meal times. that may sound like a no- brainer, but because we have seen that it is not the case, this bill cannot go as far as to say that there is ricky watter in every corner of the hallway, but -- drinking water in every corner of the hallway, but at least in the cafeteria. host: next call on the independent line, good morning. caller: i want to say very quickly, thank you for c-span. i just got my copy of the supreme court vote.

how it is a good station where you can get unbiased information from and where the country can interact. i love it. but we are talking about childhood nutrition. just like almost everything else that is wrong in this country, the problem is corporations. the federal government bails out $2.70 to feed a kid. there are companies that are producing these meals. jian-li need to do something about the quality of our meals. -- we need to do something about the quality of our meals. when i was a kid, we would joke about them. luckily, my parents gave me lunch, so i was not a president in the program. but good lord, i was glad i was not -- a participant in the

program. but good lord, i was glad i was not. guest: one of the main outcomes that we hope will be a byproduct of this legislation is that we will provide tools, some reimbursement, and some other complementary aspects as well as trying to improve the overall healthy school environment. that will provide the food service operators the tools they need to improve the quality of these meals. we want parents to keep monitoring the efforts and to be advocates. hold the schools accountable that they are doing what they need to be doing. as parents, we want to be sure that when kids walk into the schools, the effort is not undermined when they walk in the schools. host: here is a comment on twitter.

guest: there are certainly a number of school districts that do higher food service companies to come in and run the program. host: is that the norm? the guest: no, it is not. i want to say somewhere between 10% to 20%. it is not the norm, but still significant. there are differences of opinion as to whether or not that is an ok thing. again, we are on the road to a better path with this legislation. it is not going to solve everything, but those companies are still required to be accountable. and a number of them are doing phenomenal things. and they have the benefit of being able to use their resources across the country to be able to benefit the school systems that they are working in. host: and can you tell us a bit about the work of food nutrition policy consultants? guest: i do a lot of work on child nutrition issues and a lot of work with the john bates -- johnson foundation center.

we're pulling together a lot of the resources to try to ensure that policymakers have the best evidence in front of them as they make decisions. their focus on trying to identify and create a policy that promotes a healthy environment. host: food andnutritionpolicy.com is the website. next caller, go ahead. caller: i disagree with this policy on the basis of the fact that a government is funding this, right? is it going to be set up by states or out of washington? guest: the federal government does provide funding to the states to operate the program and then the states provide

funding down to the locals to operate at the local level. it is definitely funded at the federal government level with checks and balances, but also by the states in how they implement it. host: caller, do you have a follow-up? caller: yes, everyone is paying for it, but some are exempted and allowed to receive the benefit of this? guest: let me clarify. all children are able to produce a paid in the school lunch program. when my children were in school, they ate lunch at school on a regular basis. regardless of whether you're a kindergartner of through 12th grade you can walk into the cafeteria and get bigger for free or at a reduced price, angry -- a school meal. the government has been involved in the school meal program since 1946 when president truman

signed the first school lunch act into law. he did it mainly because there was a national security issue, and that was, the records going into the military were proving malnourished. -- the recruits going into the military were pretty malnourished. frankly, in some respects that has not changed. in the military we are facing another crisis. and that is, the number-one medical crisis for young women and men not being able to come into the military is obesity. host: you call it school lunch, but what about breakfast? guest: school lunch, school breakfast, that is a good point. it addresses a number of job nutrition programs. school breakfast, school lunch, after-school child care centers.

it also includes special nutrition programs for women, infants, and children. host: that is the wic program. guest: for women in pregnancy and children up to age 5. host: st. louis, missouri, your next. -- you are next. caller: my question is a little complicated. i understand and i appreciate the importance of providing healthy meals to the children in school. a couple of big concerns for me -- number one, the idea of being able to cook from scratch. i know a lot of things can be made more inexpensively for these meals or at home if

people -- or at home. people learn to cook from these boxes or cans with high soda content. yes, it increases the longevity of the food, but it impacts their health. part of the issue was the national obesity issue. people do not know how to cook from scratch anymore. also, i do not know if i can mention another television program, but i was watching -- i believe it was the 60 minutes and they were talking about the lack of protein in some of the meals from third world countries and how it is affecting children's brain development. number one, i do not think that america really knows what nutrition is any more because we

have been fed propaganda from food industries. host: let me leave it there and let our guests respond. guest: i think you raise a really good point. you will not hear any argument from me in terms of the need to reintroduce cooking and nutrition in schools. in addition to doing nutrition policy consulting, i am also president of fighting for children's nutrition education. growing up, i had the home economics class and i learned to do a little bit of cooking. i think some of those basic skills need to be reintroduced. there are not a huge number of provisions in the bill. that is something that we worked on getting a bit more emphasis on in the bill. but i'm hopeful that we will be, in addition to not getting these -- in addition to getting these programs in school, we

will also be able to get kids back to the basics of being able to camille and knowing where their food comes from. host: san antonio, texas, robert, good morning. caller: if you create a new organization to control what the kids are going to read, that would somehow give the government more control over what every child in the nation needs. another problem i have with that is -- the old and goal is to take away all of the junk food -- the ultimate goal is to take a role of the junk food in schools. if you take away all of the new job food, you are basically saying that the children cannot decide for themselves. the government is deciding what they can eat and not be, then you are taking the freedom of the child away and not giving

them the opportunity to choose what they should or should not eat. guest: i think, in terms of the government control, like i said, the government has been involved in the school meal program for over 50 years. i do think this bill is just an enhancement and strengthening of some of the standards that have been in place for that long. in terms of giving children freedoms, i am all for that. i do think, though, that parents when they send their children to school, they do expect that they will be exposed to the best and brightest and healthiest environment. i know when my kids were in fifth or sixth grade i did not expect them to come home with a reading list that had capt. underpants or garfield on it, not that i am opposed to those books. but we do not expect that, nor do we expect there to be junk food on every corner. we know they will have access to it whenever they leave the school grounds and we hope that, as parents, they are teaching them to make the right choices

believe me, as soon as they leave the school grounds, it will have many opportunity to -- many opportunities to walk into a fast-food restaurant. i do think the schools should provide a healthy is that we have to offer. host: it could be 10 gentle, but -- tangential, but is there es?thing offered in class' guest: there was already a provision in there and this bill strengthens that. it requires them to provide guidelines and rules for nutrition education and competitive foods. it also goes a little bit further and directs the usda to issue guidelines. local entities were left to

their own devices, and that was great if they were really dedicated. one, it provides a little better framework. two, it also makes these policies more transparent. parents who are interested can take a look at what the policies are, and if they do not like it, they should be able to voice their concern and be involved. host: florida, michelle, republican line. caller: i have a question. i want to know how this is going to be funded. use of the government has been involved since 1946. -- you said the government has been involved since 1946. it seems like we have been pouring in tons of dollars into the school lunch program. it is worse than it has ever been. i paid $30 to $35 per week for one child in high school. he has to pay $1 for a bottle of water. i heard you out -- talking of

our free access to water. combat is not true. and where is the parental -- that is not true. the parentals oversight? if you do not want them to eat the school lunch, bring a lunch. pinnock butter and jelly is a simple thing. -- peanut butter and jelly is a simple thing. and for those parents who do not qualify for the lunch program, do you expect them to pay $30 to $35 per week for lunch? guest: we hope not. there are some cases in which we hope to get the accounting of it better straighten out because we do not want the money that you pay to be going to reimburse the program. in terms of parental

accountability, we really need to do more. as parents, we need to know what is going on in the school system. host: t.j. in colorado springs, colorado. caller: what about the ability for kids to go off campus to get food and stuff like that? i grew up in poland in a very early 1980's and we have communist lunches and stuff. and afterward we have to go somewhere and have our own school lunch after 1989. guest: it is not huge. it does not sound like it is as big as when you were growing up. but it is a problem. i want to say about 10% of

schools have opened campuses, where students are allowed to leave -- mainly of the high- school level, some of the junior high level -- where students are allowed to leave for lunch. but we do not know what to do about that, other than others in the community providing and for that. i know in my son's high school in montgomery county, it was just the physical issue ava bad you -- that you could not feed them and the kids during that time. i did not see it -- i did not like to see them walking around with their fast food bags or with a pie in their hand, but i think you raise a good point. but right now, it is not a huge issue, but it is an issue. host: here is a comment on twitter.

guest: a little bit of everything, to be honest. i think school operators do the best they can. some research shows that food in cans are more nutritious than fresh. it is a freshly picked, stays in the refrigerator, and does not lose nutrients. there is a provision in the bill to take a look at a pilot study using organic items. with the increase reimbursement rate, you will see an emphasis on minimally process, or things that are not overly processed with the things that have added a sodium and sugar. host: one more phone call from jennifer. in appellatio and have alachu